| Course | DPH 870 Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Research problem paper |
| Length | About 1,119 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 870 Module 2
Naming the Gap: Formulating the Research Problem for an Evaluation of Community Health Worker Support
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 870: Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Naming the Gap: Formulating the Research Problem for an Evaluation of Community Health Worker Support
A research problem states what is wrong or unknown, why it matters and what the study will contribute. A vague problem leads to a vague study; a precise one guides every later decision. This paper formulates the research problem for a DPH capstone evaluating a composite county health department's community health worker program for adults with uncontrolled hypertension.
What Makes a Problem Researchable
A researchable problem is specific, can be answered with available or obtainable data, matters to people who can act on the answer and has not already been answered for this setting. It is framed as a question about relationships or effects, not as a solution the researcher wishes to promote.
Parts of the Problem Statement
The table lists the parts of a problem statement and the capstone's wording for each.
| Part | Capstone wording |
|---|---|
| The issue | Under half of east-side residents with hypertension have reached control |
| Why it matters | Uncontrolled hypertension drives strokes, heart attacks and early death, contributing to a nine-year life expectancy gap |
| What is known | Trials and reviews show community health workers can improve blood pressure outcomes |
| The gap | No evidence on whether a health department-run program achieves similar results locally |
| Consequence of the gap | The county cannot decide whether to expand, change or end the program |
| What the study will do | Estimate the program's effect on control at 12 months using clinical data |
The Evidence Base
Brownstein et al. (2007) reviewed the evidence and reported better blood pressure control along with gains in appointment keeping and medication adherence. A randomized trial in primary care practices found that community health worker support improved patients' reported quality of care and reduced hospital days (Kangovi et al., 2018). Evidence from lower-income countries also supports their role in chronic disease control (Jeet et al., 2017).
The Gap
Most evidence comes from programs run by research teams or health systems with strong support. Less is known about programs run by local health departments with routine staffing and funding. The capstone addresses this gap for one county, producing evidence directly relevant to local decisions and to other health departments considering similar programs.
Purpose Statement
This study aims to estimate how participation in a health department community health worker program affects blood pressure control at 12 months among adults with uncontrolled hypertension in three east-side neighborhoods, relative to matched adults who did not take part.
Research Questions
Questions are framed using population, intervention, comparison and outcome elements, a structure that improves clarity and search precision (Methley et al., 2014). Question one: for east-side residents whose hypertension was uncontrolled, did joining the program, rather than not joining, raise the share reaching a reading under 140/90 after one year? Question two asks the same about change in systolic pressure. Question three explores whether benefits vary across age groups, sexes, insurance types and starting blood pressure levels.
Hypotheses
For questions one and two, the hypotheses are that participants will have higher control and larger reductions in systolic pressure than matched adults. Question three is exploratory, with no directional hypothesis.
Scope and Delimitations
The study is limited to adults aged 18 to 85 enrolled between January 2024 and June 2025, to outcomes at 12 months and to clinical data from the hospital system and two health centers. It does not examine costs, which are addressed separately, or long-term outcomes such as strokes.
Key Definitions
Uncontrolled hypertension is defined as two clinic readings with systolic pressure at or above 140 mmHg during the 12 months before enrollment. Participation is counted from enrollment, however many visits followed. Control is a reading under 140/90 taken at whichever visit falls nearest the one-year mark.
Feasibility
Data use agreements with the hospital system and health centers provide access to clinical records, and the health department holds enrollment and visit data. The number of participants provides adequate power for the main questions, and the timeline fits within the capstone schedule.
Significance
Findings will inform whether the county expands the program, contribute evidence on health department-run community health worker programs and support the county's strategic goal of closing the east-side life expectancy gap.
Common Errors
Common errors in problem statements include describing a topic rather than a problem, stating a solution as the problem, citing evidence without identifying the gap, writing questions too broad to answer and failing to define key terms. Checking the statement against the parts in the table helps avoid these errors.
From Topic to Problem
The capstone began with a broad topic, community health workers, and narrowed through several drafts. The first draft asked whether community health workers help people; the second whether they help people with hypertension; the final version specifies population, program, comparison, outcome and time. Each round of narrowing made the question more answerable and the study more feasible.
Aligning Problem, Purpose and Questions
The problem, purpose and questions must align. If the problem is uncertainty about a local program's effect, the purpose must be to estimate that effect and the questions must ask about it. A common misalignment is a problem about access paired with questions about outcomes. Reading the three together, aloud, helps catch these mismatches.
Stakeholder Input
Health department staff reviewed drafts of the problem statement and asked that the study also consider which participants benefited most, which became the exploratory third question. Community health workers suggested defining participation as enrollment rather than a minimum number of visits, reflecting how the program actually operates.
Ethics in Framing
How a problem is framed has ethical implications. Framing east-side residents as noncompliant would place blame on individuals; framing the problem as gaps in support and access directs attention to systems. The capstone's framing focuses on the program's ability to close gaps rather than on residents' failings.
Testing the Problem Statement
A useful test is to read the problem statement to someone outside the field and ask them to explain what the study will find out and why it matters. If they cannot, the statement needs work. The capstone's statement was tested with a health department program manager, who could restate both the gap and the decision it would inform.
Linking to Theory
The problem statement also names the theory behind the program: that trusted community members can reduce barriers across individual, interpersonal and community levels. Naming the theory early prepares for the framework in Chapter 2.
Conclusion
The research problem identifies uncontrolled hypertension on the east side, summarizes evidence that community health workers can help, names the gap in evidence for health department-run programs and states what the study will do. Clear purpose, questions, hypotheses, scope and definitions give the capstone a precise foundation for design and analysis.
References
Brownstein, J. N., Chowdhury, F. M., Norris, S. L., Horsley, T., Jack, L., Zhang, X., & Satterfield, D. (2007). Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of people with hypertension. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.011
Jeet, G., Thakur, J. S., Prinja, S., & Singh, M. (2017). Community health workers for non-communicable diseases prevention and control in developing countries: Evidence and implications. PLOS ONE, 12(7), Article e0180640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180640
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Norton, L., Harte, R., Zhao, X., Carter, T., Grande, D., & Long, J. A. (2018). Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(12), 1635-1643. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4630
Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14, Article 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
DPH 870 Module 2 instructions, in plain terms
Formulating the research problem is part of Aspen's DPH 870 description, and because Aspen keeps the second module's prompt private, the sample drafts a complete problem statement. Problem statement assignments usually ask you to describe the issue, show why it matters, summarize what is known, identify the gap and state purpose and questions. Test your problem against criteria for being researchable. Use a table to check every part is present. Cite evidence for what is known. Name the gap precisely. Write questions in structured form. Define key terms and set scope. Read problem, purpose and questions together to check alignment.
How this DPH 870 Module 2 example is built
The paper runs to about a thousand words under nineteen headings, beginning with what makes a problem researchable and a two-column table of the statement's parts. The evidence base and the gap follow, then the purpose statement, research questions, hypotheses, scope, definitions, feasibility and significance. Common errors, narrowing from topic to problem, aligning problem and questions, stakeholder input, ethics in framing, testing the statement and linking to theory are added. A margin comment explains why criteria are listed before the statement is written. The conclusion summarizes the foundation the problem gives the capstone. The parts table works as a checklist that later sections fill in one by one, from the evidence base to significance.
Reading the DPH 870 Module 2 grading rubric
Problem statements are marked on clarity, significance, a well-supported gap, aligned purpose and questions, and precise definitions. Brownstein and colleagues, Kangovi and colleagues, Jeet and colleagues and Methley and colleagues supply the evidence, formatted in APA style. The parts table makes the structure visible. The gap is local and specific. Showing how the question narrowed across drafts demonstrates the iterative thinking instructors reward. Ethical framing that avoids blaming residents shows awareness that language shapes how a problem is understood. Feasibility is argued with specific data agreements rather than assumed. Definitions and scope leave no doubt about who and what the study covers.
Common DPH 870 Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often describe a topic rather than a problem, or state a solution they want to prove. Others cite evidence without naming the gap. Begin by naming the distance between current conditions and where they ought to be. Show what is known and what is not. Write one purpose sentence. Frame questions with population, intervention, comparison and outcome. Define every key term. If your problem feels too big, a tutor can help you narrow it through several drafts. Close with the decision your answer will inform, and test the statement on someone outside public health to see whether it makes sense to a general reader. Keep each draft of your problem statement so you can show your committee how it evolved. Define every abbreviation. Write the purpose statement in one sentence.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DPH 870 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 870 Module 1: The Steps of Scientific Research
- DPH 870 Module 3: Matching Designs to the Problem
- DPH 870 Module 4: A Documented Search Strategy
- DPH 870 Module 5: Critical Appraisal of Key Studies
- DPH 870 Module 6: A Synthesis Matrix by Theme
- DPH 870 Module 7: Writing the Literature Review Argument
- DPH 870 Module 8: Chapter 2 of the Capstone
- DPH 805 Module 4: Systems Thinking and a Systems Map
- DPH 850 Module 1: Informatics Frameworks for Public Health
- DPH 810 Module 6: Bias, Confounding and Alternatives
- DPH 840 Module 4: Monitoring and Revising Strategy
DPH 870 Module 2 questions, answered
What does DPH 870 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 870 covers formulating a research problem, so a problem statement with questions is typical. Confirm with your classroom prompt.
What is a research gap?
Something important that existing evidence does not answer for a given population, setting or question.
What is a purpose statement?
One or two sentences stating what the study will do, for whom and with what outcome.
Where can I find a free DPH 870 Module 2 sample paper?
Read the research problem paper above, with a table giving the capstone's wording for each part of a problem statement.
How do you formulate a research problem in DPH 870 Module 2?
Describe the issue and why it matters, summarize what is known, name the gap, then state a purpose, structured questions, scope and key definitions.